Don't Stand So Close to Me

Abstract

Three studies investigated the effects of self-construal activation on behavior conducive to interpersonal proximity. Study 1 revealed that compared with control participants, participants who were primed with the independent (or personal) self sat further away from where they anticipated another person would sit in a waiting room. Results of Study 2 indicated that participants primed with the interdependent (or social) self sat closer to the anticipated other person than did those primed with the independent self. Finally, Study 3 used the chronic self-construal of participants to predict the seating distance in dyadic settings. Results showed that greater independence of participants' self-construals was associated with greater spatial distance during the interaction. Together, the studies provide clear evidence that self-construal activation automatically influences interpersonal behavior as reflected in the actual distance between the self and others. Results are discussed in terms of the functions and motives connected to self-construals.

One of the defining elements in the construal of the self is the interconnectedness with other people. An interdependent self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) or social self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996) is often defined in terms of a relative closeness or interconnectedness between the self and others. By contrast, the independent self or personal self is defined as a bounded and independent entity, with a greater distance between the self and the other. Although studies have shown that a greater level of interdependent self-construal is associated with a stronger feeling of, perception of, and preference for closeness (e.g., Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; Gardner, Gabriel, & Hochschild, 2002; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Vorauer & Cameron, 2002), it is unclear whether an interdependent self-construal also implies behavioral consequences conducive to physical interpersonal closeness, as reflected in proximity seeking. In the studies we report here, we investigated the behavioral effect of self-construal on interpersonal closeness.

Inspired by Triandis's (1989) and Markus and Kitayama's (1991) conceptualizations of the self, most of the research on independent versus interdependent self-construals has been conducted in connection with research on culture (Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama, 1997; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). Members of Eastern versus Western cultures were found to have different conceptualizations of the self on average (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). Whereas members of Eastern, or interdependence, cultures emphasize relationships with other people and the dyads or groups to which they belong when describing themselves, members from Western, or independence, cultures tend to emphasize their own unique attributes and traits (e.g., Cousins, 1989; Hofstede, 1980; Ip & Bond, 1995; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Markus et al., 1997; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991). According to Markus and Kitayama (1991), cultural differences with regard to self-construal correspond to different sets of goals. Members of independent cultures strive to maintain a sense of autonomy and emphasize the value of personal values, attitudes, and convictions, whereas the principal goals of members of interdependence cultures pertain to fitting in or harmonizing with other people.

However, given the universality of both the goal for autonomy and the goal for belonging (e.g., Brewer, 1991), the “cultural-self perspective” (Sedikides et al., 2003) has recently been challenged by the notion that despite differences in chronic self-construal, individuals sometimes construe their selves as socially embedded and at other times as relatively isolated, depending on the context (e.g., Brewer & Gardner, 1996). In other words, the construal of the self in terms of independence or interdependence may be flexible and influenced by current motives and situations, rather than being a rigid human property. Indeed, a couple of studies have yielded empirical evidence that independent and interdependent self-construals coexist within the individual. In particular, Trafimow et al. (1991) were first to show parallel effects of self-construal priming and cultural background on actual self-construal. They found that both participants who had received a priming of the independent self and participants from a Western culture described themselves using more individualistic and fewer social characteristics than participants who had received a priming of the interdependent self or participants from an Eastern culture. Similarly, Trafimow, Silverman, Fan, and Law (1997) found that speaking a collectivistic language (Chinese), as compared with an individualistic language (English), increased the accessibility of the social self in bilingual students from Hong Kong (see also Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982). Extending these findings, other researchers have shown that activating the independent self versus the interdependent self has profound effects on intention formation (Ybarra & Trafimow, 1998), social comparison (Stapel & Koomen, 2001), context-dependent information processing (Kühnen, Hannover, & Schubert, 2001), social judgment (Hannover, Kühnen, & Birkner, 2000), mimicry (van Baaren, Maddux, Chartrand, de Bouter, & van Knippenberg, 2003), and the endorsement of individualistic versus collectivistic values (Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999). Together, these data provide evidence that self-construals may depend on the situation.

Furthermore, the cultural-self perspective (Sedikides et al., 2003) has recently been challenged by studies that did not find evidence for the assumed cross-national differences in chronic independent versus interdependent self-construal (e.g., Taiwan vs. the United States) when self-construal was actually measured (e.g., Matsumoto, 1999; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Oyserman, Kemmelmeier, & Coon, 2002). Oyserman, Kemmelmeier, and Coon (2002) concluded that many other variables may explain the observed differences between Western and Eastern cultures because many cross-national studies fail “to isolate individualism-collectivism as the crucial ingredient for observed differences” (p. 112). Therefore, a different approach, in which self-construals are directly measured or experimentally manipulated, is needed to inform a more definitive stand on self-construal's consequences.

However, even the studies that have used experimental priming of independent or interdependent self-construals have hardly ever investigated effects on interpersonal behavior. One exception is a study by van Baaren et al. (2003), which showed that activation of the interdependent self-construal facilitates the imitation of behaviors of others (e.g., playing with a pen, rubbing one's face), whereas activation of the independent self-construal inhibits imitation. In the research we report here, we studied the effects of self-construal on behaviors related to interpersonal proximity. Even though self-construals are defined chiefly in terms of perceived interconnectedness with and distance from other people, thus far it is unclear whether activation of the independent self-construal is associated with greater actual physical distance between the self and others than is activation of the interdependent self-construal.

The level of physical interpersonal proximity may serve functions related to the independent or interdependent self-construal. As we have noted, several authors have linked the interdependent self-construal to goals as belonging and maintaining connectedness and harmonious relationships with other people and social groups (Brewer & Roccas, 2001; Cross & Madson, 1997; Gardner et al., 1999). It has been shown that interpersonal proximity fosters interpersonal communication and cooperative behavior (e.g., Salewski, 1993), smooths interactions, and increases interpersonal liking (e.g., Collett, 1971; Kahn & McGaughey, 1977). For example, Collett (1971) trained Englishmen to change their behavior toward Arabs, and, among other things, they learned to stand closer to Arabs than they previously did. Arabs liked trainees better than untrained control Englishmen. Distancing oneself from others may promote functions related to the independent self, such as maintaining autonomy and personal integrity (Brewer & Roccas, 2001; Gardner et al., 1999). As a consequence of greater interpersonal distance, one may be less influenced by others and better able to act on one's own set of goals, attitudes, and personal values. Recent studies on goal pursuit have shown that goals may become automatically activated and translated into behavior given the right context (e.g., Bargh, 1990; Bargh, Gollwitzer, Chai, Barndollar, & Troetschel, 2001). If moving closer and distancing oneself from others serve the motives of interdependent and independent self-construals, and these motives are spontaneously activated upon self-construal priming, it is conceivable that activation of self-construals automatically influences proximity behavior.

Preliminary evidence for the relation between self-construal and interpersonal distance is found in cross-cultural research. Several investigations have shown that the preferred interpersonal proximity is greater for members of collectivistic cultures than for members of individualistic cultures (Cline & Puhl, 1984; Little, 1968; Noesjirwan, 1977; Shuter, 1977; Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982; Watson, 1970; Watson & Graves, 1966). For example, a study by Watson and Graves (1966) showed that Arab students in America faced each other more directly and sat closer to each other than American students. Also, Watson (1970) showed that students from a series of collectivistic countries (Arab countries, India and Pakistan, Latin America, southern Europe, and east Asia; cf. Hofstede, 1980) sat closer to each other than students from individualistic countries (America and Australia). As culture may influence the chronic accessibility of self-construals (e.g., Trafimow et al., 1991), these cross-cultural studies may provide some indirect evidence for the relation between self-construal and proximity behavior.

On the basis of the findings that both types of self-construal coexist within individuals, we hypothesized that contextual primes that activate an individual's independent or interdependent self influence the physical distance between that person and others. Using self-primes allows an experimental test of the relation between self-construal and proximity behavior. The many confounded variables that might explain the previous findings on the association between culture and self-construal would be ruled out if we could demonstrate that experimental manipulations of self-construal also affect interpersonal distance. In addition, if self-construal affects interpersonal proximity, one would expect individual differences in chronic self-construal (Singelis, 1994) to be associated with interpersonal distance, such that chronically independent individuals would tend to sit further away from another person than chronically interdependent individuals do. Combining an experimental with an individual differences approach would provide a direct test of our hypothesis that self-construal influences interpersonal-proximity behavior.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

In three studies, we tested the influence of self-construal on the interpersonal distance between an individual and other people. In Study 1, we predicted that participants primed with the independent self would choose to sit further away from where another person was expected to sit than would participants in a control condition. In Study 2, we predicted that participants primed with the interdependent self would sit closer to this expected other person than would participants primed with the independent self. Finally, in Study 3, we predicted that dyads whose participants had more interdependent self-construals would sit closer to each other than pairs with more independent self-construals.

STUDY 1

Method

Overview

Participants in this study were subliminally primed either with their own first name, which activated an independent self-construal, or with a neutral word. Afterward, they were asked to take a seat in a waiting area where a jacket hanging over a chair indicated the presence of another person. The dependent variable was the number of chairs between the chair with the jacket on it and the chair on which participants chose to sit.

Participants and Design

Seventy-seven undergraduate students from the University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands (50 women and 27 men), were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions and paid for their participation. The experiment had a single factor (self-construal: independent vs. control) between-subjects design.

Procedure

Upon arrival at the laboratory, participants were led into a room by the experimenter and seated in front of a computer. After typing in their first name, the participants performed a lexical decision task in which neutral words were presented. Prior to half of the total of 18 trials, a word was subliminally presented for 16 ms. In the experimental condition, the word was the first name of the participant, which activated the independent personal self-construal; in the control condition, the neutral word “appel” (Dutch for “apple”) was flashed on the screen. After completing the lexical decision task, the participants were asked to take a seat in a waiting area, ostensibly to give the experimenter some time to prepare the second part of the experiment. Four chairs were lined up in the waiting area, with a jacket hanging over the chair on the extreme left. This jacket suggested the presence of another person (Macrae & Johnston, 1998). The dependent variable was the distance, in number of chairs, between the chair with the jacket on it and the chair that the participant chose to sit on.

Results and Discussion

To examine the effects of self-construal and gender, we performed a 2 (self-construal: independent vs. control)×2 (gender: female vs. male) between-subjects analysis of variance on the distance between the participant's chair and the occupied chair. As expected, participants in the independent-self condition sat further away (M=2.07) than participants in the control condition (M=1.66), F(1, 73)=8.57, p<.01. 1 No main effect of gender was obtained. Also, no interaction effect was found.

These results confirmed our hypothesis and provide initial evidence that self-construal influences interpersonal distance. Specifically, when participants were subliminally exposed to their own first name, which activated the independent self-construal, they sat further away from an occupied chair than participants who had been subliminally exposed to a neutral word. Although this study demonstrates that the independent self-construal is associated with an increased interpersonal distance, it is possible that any activation of the self will result in decreased interpersonal closeness and a preference for greater distance. Therefore, in Study 2, we temporarily activated either the independent self-construal or the interdependent self-construal. On the basis of the theoretical notion that the interdependent self is associated with less distance between the self and the other than is the independent self, we expected participants in the interdependent-self condition to exhibit greater interpersonal closeness than participants in the independent-self condition.

STUDY 2

Method

Overview

In order to activate the personal or social self-construal, we instructed participants to think about the differences (independent self) or similarities (interdependent self) between themselves and their family and close friends (Trafimow et al., 1991). Afterward, as in Experiment 1, they were asked to take a seat in a waiting area where a jacket indicated the presence of another person. Again, the dependent variable was the number of chairs between the chair with the jacket on it and the chair on which participants sat.

Participants and Design

Twenty-seven undergraduate students from the University of Nijmegen (16 women and 11 men) were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions and paid for their participation. The experiment had a single factor (self-construal: independent vs. interdependent) between-subjects design.

Procedure

Upon arrival at the laboratory, participants were led into an individual cubicle by the experimenter. They then received a form with the instruction to think about their close friends and family and write four sentences about those relationships. Specifically, participants in the interdependent-self condition were asked to write about the similarities between themselves and their friends and family, whereas participants in the independent-self condition were instructed to write about the differences (Trafimow et al., 1991).

While handing out the form that contained the manipulation, the experimenter told participants to go to the waiting area and take a seat whenever they had completed that task. As in Study 1, she told the participants that this would give her time to prepare for the second task. This time, six chairs were lined up in the waiting area, with a jacket hanging over the chair on the extreme left. In addition to the jacket, a sandwich, some reading material, a bag, and a pencil were placed next to the chair to further imply the presence of another person. Again, the dependent variable was the distance between the chair with the jacket on it and the chair on which the participant sat.

Results and Discussion

To examine the effect of self-construal, we performed a 2 (self-construal: independent vs. interdependent)×2 (gender: female vs. male) between-subjects analysis of variance on the distance between the participant's chair and the occupied chair. As expected, participants in the independent-self condition sat further away (M=2.44) than participants in the interdependent-self condition (M=2.09), F(1, 23)=4.85, p<.05. Furthermore, a marginally significant main effect for gender was obtained, F(1, 23)=4.15, p<.06. Male participants sat further away (M=2.45) than female participants (M=2.16). No interaction effect was found.

These results support the hypothesis that interdependent self-construal is associated with greater interpersonal closeness than independent self-construal. Our finding provides additional support for the assumption that self-construals affect not only the perceived distance between self and other, but also the actual distance between the two. In addition, we found that women display greater interpersonal proximity than men (see, e.g., Hayduk, 1983).

Studies 1 and 2 showed effects of self-construal on actual interpersonal distance from an anticipated other. In a final study, we tested our ideas in real dyadic interactions. Furthermore, instead of manipulating short-term activations, this time we focused on chronic differences in self-construal as measured by the Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994). We expected that the more independent the interacting persons were, the further away from each other they would sit, or, stated differently, we expected that the more interdependent the subjects' chronic self-construals were, the closer to each other they would sit.

STUDY 3

Method

Overview

In order to measure chronic self-construal, we asked participants to fill out the Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994; German translation by Hannover et al., 2000). Afterward, participants were randomly assigned to dyads and seated in front of a video camera. They were given a topic to talk about for 3 min. At the end of the session, a photo was taken in a standardized manner with a video camera. The dependent variable was the distance between the tips of the noses of the 2 participants.

Participants and Design

Forty-six female undergraduate students from the Technical University of Berlin, Germany, volunteered for the study.

Procedure

Upon arrival, participants were asked to fill out the Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994). Afterward, the experimenter randomly allocated participants to pairs (N=23 pairs). One pair after the other was led into a room by the experimenter and seated in a standardized manner on chairs that were positioned at right angles to a square table. The chairs were positioned in front of a video camera. Participants were given 90 s to prepare speeches to introduce themselves to each other, with the understanding that the speeches should total no more than 3 min. After the participants were ready, they were videotaped for 3 min while they gave their talks. At the end of the 3-min talk between the participants, the experimenter announced that a photo would be taken by the video camera.

Results and Discussion

To test our hypothesis that the degree of independence or interdependence was correlated with seating distance, we first standardized each of the two subscales of the Self-Construal Scale. We then computed the difference between the Independence subscale and Interdependence subscale for every single participant. The more accessible independent-self knowledge was to a person relative to interdependent-self knowledge, the higher her resulting self-construal score. Within each pair, the individual self-construal scores of the partners were summed and correlated with the metric distance between the tips of the noses on the photo taken at the end of the interaction. As expected, the more independent the self-construals of a given dyad's partners, the larger the distance between the tips of their noses, r(23)=.41, p<.05.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research provides direct evidence for the influence of self-construal on interpersonal behavior, as reflected in the actual distance between the individual and another person. Study 1 showed that accessibility of independent self-construal increases interpersonal distance. Activation of the independent self resulted in greater seating distance from an anticipated other person than was found in the control group. Study 2 showed that activating the interdependent self-construal led to greater interpersonal proximity than activation of the independent self-construal. Participants in the independent-self condition sat further away from an anticipated other than participants in the interdependent-self condition. Finally, Study 3 showed that increasing independence of a dyad's self-construals is associated with the partners exhibiting a larger spatial distance while interacting.

Until recently, independence versus interdependence in self-construal was mainly studied by comparing members of collectivistic, interdependent cultures and members of individualistic, independent cultures (Markus et al., 1997; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Sedikides et al., 2003). In line with our hypothesis on self-construal and interpersonal closeness, members of collectivistic cultures have been found to sit more closely together than members of individualistic cultures (Cline & Puhl, 1984; Little, 1968; Noesjirwan, 1977; Shuter, 1977; Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982; Watson, 1970; Watson & Graves, 1966). However, in these cross-cultural studies, effects of self-construal are confounded by many other variables. Therefore, cross-cultural studies do not provide direct evidence for the effects of self-construal on proximity seeking.

The present research extended insights from studies showing that independent and interdependent self-construal are both mentally represented in each individual and activated by situational cues and motives (e.g., Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Trafimow et al., 1991). The results of our studies are in line with these ideas but inconsistent with the idea that self-construal is determined by cultural background (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). We showed that contextual priming of the independent self, compared with priming of the interdependent self, distanced people from others. Thus, the results of Studies 1 and 2 further support the idea that different self-construals coexist within each single individual and extend previous studies to the domain of interpersonal behavior.

The present experiments also support the idea that individuals differ in the chronic accessibility of interdependent or independent self-construal. First, results of Study 3 showed that individual differences in self-construal (Singelis, 1994) affect actual proximity to other people during interaction: Chronic independence was found to be associated with increased interpersonal distance. Second, as Cross and Madson (1997) argued, gender is another individual difference variable that may affect self-construal dominance. According to these researchers, women are socialized to place greater emphasis on and pay more attention to social relationships than men and are therefore more likely to develop a chronic interdependent self-construal. In line with this reasoning and previous findings on gender and interpersonal space (see Hayduk, 1983), Study 2 showed that female participants exhibited a smaller interpersonal distance than male participants. Note, however, that no interaction between gender and self-construal activation was obtained in Studies 1 and 2, suggesting that priming the independent or interdependent self-construal was equally effective for male and female participants.

A limitation of Study 1 has to be acknowledged. Our way of activating the independent self by subliminally flashing the first name of the participant in Study 1 has never been used before. Even though it makes intuitive sense that one's first name refers to one's unique, idiosyncratic self, future studies should incorporate manipulation checks in order to ensure that this methodology in fact activates the independent self. However, the validity of our priming technique is supported by the fact that we were able to replicate the predicted pattern of results in Study 2, which used a well-established priming method.

Furthermore, more research is required to elucidate the exact processes that are responsible for the effect of self-construal on interpersonal distance. We have proposed that physical interpersonal proximity may help to serve functions related to the social, interdependent self, such as maintaining connectedness to other people and social groups, whereas a greater interpersonal distance between the self and others may serve goals related to the personal, independent self, such as autonomy and individual success (Brewer & Roccas, 2001). Activating a particular self-construal may automatically activate related motives, and as a consequence influence behavior. Clearly, the present results suggest that self-construal automatically regulates interpersonal behavior. In Study 1, participants' self-construal was unconsciously activated. In Study 2, although participants were aware of the self-construal prime, they were not aware of its influence on their behavior. Thus, our results may be added to recent findings that behavior can be regulated without conscious awareness (e.g., Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996; Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001). Despite the fact that proximity behavior may be regulated automatically as a function of self-construal, future research is needed to determine the exact underlying process. The possible mediating role of automatic goal activation may be tested either by priming specific goals (e.g., belonging vs. autonomy) and assessing the effects on interpersonal distance or by studying the effects of self-construal activation on the spontaneous activation of goals related to belonging and autonomy. Such studies may further clarify how people's interpersonal behavior is shaped by the way they construe themselves.

Footnotes

¹Considering the small range of scores of the dependent variable, we also examined the effect of self-construal and gender using a 2 (self-construal: independent vs. control)×2 (gender: female vs. male)×3 (chair: first vs. second vs. third) configuration frequency analysis (CFA; Krauth & Lienert, 1973) of the distance between the participant's chair and the occupied chair. This analysis revealed similar patterns of results.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mark Dechesne and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous drafts of this manuscript. Also, our thanks go to Claudia Pöhlmann, Free University Berlin, for collecting the data for Study 3. Part of this research was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HA 2381/6-1) to the fifth author.

References

Aron

E.A.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of others in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 595–612.

Bargh

J.A.

(1990). Auto-motives: Pre-conscious determinants of thought and behavior. In

Higgins

E.T.

Sorrentino

R.M.

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 93–130). New York: Guilford Press.

Bargh

J.A.

Chen

Burrows

(1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244.

Bargh

J.A.

Gollwitzer

P.M.

Chai

A.L.

Barndollar

Troetschel

(2001). Automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014–1027.

Brewer

M.B.

(1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.

Brewer

M.B.

Gardner

(1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.

Brewer

M.B.

Roccas

(2001). Individual values, social identity, and optimal distinctiveness. In

Sedikides

Brewer

M.B.

(Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 219–237). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Cline

R.J.

Puhl

C.A.

(1984). Gender, culture and geography: A comparison of seating arrangements in the United States and Taiwan. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 199–219.

Collett

(1971). On training Englishmen in the non-verbal behaviours of Arabs. International Journal of Psychology, 6, 209–215.

10.

Cousins

S.D.

(1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124–131.

11.

Cross

S.E.

Madson

(1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.

12.

Dijksterhuis

Bargh

J.A.

(2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. In

Zanna

M.P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 1–40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

13.

Gardner

W.L.

Gabriel

Hochschild

(2002). When you and I are “we,” you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 239–251.

14.

Gardner

W.L.

Gabriel

Lee

A.Y.

(1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10, 321–326.

15.

Hannover

Kühnen

Birkner

(2000). Independentes und interdependentes Selbstwissen als Determinante von Assimilation und Kontrast bei kontextuellem Priming [Interdependent and independent self-knowledge as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast in contextual priming]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 31, 44–56.

16.

Hayduk

L.A.

(1983). Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 293–335.

17.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

18.

G.W.M.

Bond

M.H.

(1995). Culture, values, and the spontaneous self-concept. Asian Journal of Psychology, 1, 29–35.

19.

Kahn

McGaughey

T.A.

(1977). Distance and liking: When moving close produces increased liking. Social Psychology Quarterly, 40, 138–144.

20.

Krauth

Lienert

G.A.

(1973). Die Konfigurationsfrequenzanalyse (KFA) und ihre Anwendung in Psychologie und Medizin [Configuration frequency analysis and its application in psychology and medicine]. Freiburg, Germany: Verlag Karl Alber.

21.

Kühnen

Hannover

Schubert

(2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 397–409.

22.

Little

K.B.

(1968). Cultural variations in social schemata. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 1–7.

23.

Macrae

C.N.

Johnston

(1998). Help, I need somebody: Automatic action and inaction. Social Cognition, 16, 400–417.

24.

Markus

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

25.

Markus

H.R.

Mullally

P.R.

Kitayama

(1997). Self-ways: Diversity in modes of cultural participation. In

Neisser

Jopling

(Eds.), The conceptual self in context (pp. 13–61). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Matsumoto

(1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama's theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 289–310.

27.

Noesjirwan

(1977). Contrasting cultural patterns of interpersonal closeness in doctors' waiting rooms in Sydney and Jakarta. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 357–368.

28.

Oyserman

Coon

Kemmelmeier

(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–73.

29.

Oyserman

Kemmelmeier

Coon

(2002). Cultural psychology: A new look. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 110–117.

30.

Salewski

(1993). Räumlicher Abstand in dyadischen Interaktionen [Interpersonal distance in dyadic interactions]. Gruppendynamik, 24, 5–21.

31.

Sedikides

Gaertner

Toguchi

(2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60–79.

32.

Shuter

(1977). A field study on non-verbal communication in Germany, Italy and the United States. Communication Monographs, 44, 298–305.

33.

Singelis

T.M.

(1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.

34.

Stapel

Koomen

(2001). I, we and the effects of others on me: How self-construal level moderates social comparison effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 766–781.

35.

Sussman

N.M.

Rosenfeld

H.M.

(1982). Influence of culture, language, and sex on conversational distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 66–74.

36.

Trafimow

Silverman

Fan

Law

(1997). The effects of language and priming on the relative accessibility of the private self and the collective self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 107–123.

37.

Trafimow

Triandis

H.C.

Goto

S.G.

(1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649–655.

38.

Triandis

H.C.

(1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.

39.

van Baaren

R.B.

Maddux

W.W.

Chartrand

T.L.

de Bouter

van Knippenberg

(2003). It takes two to mimic: Behavioral consequences of self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1093–1102.

40.

Vorauer

J.D.

Cameron

J.J.

(2002). So close, and yet so far: Does collectivism foster transparency overestimation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1344–1352.

41.

Watson

O.M.

(1970). Proxemic behavior: A cross cultural study. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.

42.

Watson

O.M.

Graves

T.D.

(1966). Quantitative research in proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 68, 971–985.

43.

Ybarra

Trafimow

(1998). How priming the private self or collective self affects the relative weights of attitudes and subjective norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 362–370.